2013/6/25 Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_el...@lavabit.com> > On 06/25/2013 02:43 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote: > >> I've arrived at my destination, so I'll try to process through this >> thread. It's substantial, so I'll probably have several comments to >> make. I'll start with a quick response to Kristofer. >> >> ... So, for rated methods, I suggest Majority Judgement. >> >> >> I absolutely agree that a median (aka Bucklin) method such as Majority >> Judgment is a good solution to the problem you're talking about. But we >> activists really should push for consensus on which of these methods we >> should talk about, because the differences aren't important enough to >> justify separating our efforts. >> >> I would suggest that we unite behind "Majority Approval Voting" as the >> exemplary median/Bucklin method. Kristofer: do you disagree? If so, why? >> > > I haven't really been investigating MAV enough to say if it's got any > "weird behavior" (asymmetries in tiebreaking, etc). Apart from that, I'm a > bit conservative with names, but not so much that I can't switch over to > MAV :-) > > There could be another reason to using MJ, though: it's the name that was > used in B&L's paper. If you say "MJ", then the people you're talking to can > go and find the paper - and the experimental results - quite easily. But > MAV? There's not much out there about it outside of Electorama. >
I plan to use it as one option in my upcoming experimental paper, so there would be at least some academically-citeable (and wikipedia-RS) reference. > > Also, a somewhat more distant objection: I don't really see these methods > from the "iterated Approval" or "Bucklin" POV. To me, they're rated methods > that use certain statistical concepts (the median estimator, primarily) to > be better at resisting strategy (and to handle monotone nonlinear > transformations of the grade scale). So "Majority Approval" doesn't explain > my way of looking at the method very well. > I understand. It wasn't my first choice of title either. But it won the vote, and I value unity more than purity in such questions. > > But: these are objections I can live with. If referring to the method as > MAV is a good strategy and provides unity, then I will do so. I just > thought I'd let you know what feelings I notice when I think of "MAV" - > both the name and the method. > > Thanks for responding. Jameson
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info